Compensation to family of cyclist killed by truck at Bow cut because he jumped red light

I don't really understand this case. And given how tragic the results are (the article specifically refers to the grief in the aftermath) I feel a bit uneasy about abstractly discussing it.

But essentially I don't understand what causal role the red light played in the event. Why could the same thing not have happened if both had gone through a few seconds earlier?

Edit - also, if they went through 'just after the light went red' then it sounds like the very common (almost universal) situation of a vehicle accelerating on an amber to try and beat the red and failing to do so. That's almost normal behaviour now, few drivers stop when a green goes to amber. Motorists do it far more than cyclists because they are more confident of having the speed to beat the red, but even cyclists do it occasionally, especially if all the cars around them show no sign of stopping.

Please bear in mind that Debbie Dorling has made posts on the Road CC website. A degree of sensitivity should be used with regard to any comments.

Over 40 years of cycling and I've never yet seen a case where jumping a red light was safer than not doing so. And in spite of many attempts by others to give real examples of where jumping the red light was safer I've yer to see one that actually works.

In this sad case the real injustice was the derisory charges made and penalty given against the driver.

Awful situation all round. Stop at red lights, no matter who you are.

Whilst I acknowledge the 'letter of the law' interpretation half the posts use to justify a lower amount being paid to the victim's widow, I maintain that it is a totally uncompassionate, almost reptilian view of the world. Punishments are there to send deterrent messages to the perpetrator and the rest of us. So what sort of message is this decision supposed to send? Does it act as a deterrent? Who in their right mind is going to think, in the heat of the moment:

'Ooh, best I don't proceed through that light even though I can see it's totally clear and there's a massive HGV up my arse, because if it also breaks the law - twice - and I'm crushed to pulp under its wheels, my missus will lose out financially'?

Come on people. The law, in this regard, is a total ass. Do you seriously think someone will change their cycling behaviour because in the event of their death at the hands of another their relations will be a bit worse off?

Just about *any* situation where someone dies accidentally could be viewed as them being culpable in some manner or another. To effectively reward an insurance company for this does no-one any service whatsoever, and punishes someone who has no way to change their subsequent behaviour to be a better citizen.

What's next? NHS treatment witheld because when you broke your arm/leg/back misjudging a traffic regulation?

...and that's another thing: how do we KNOW the victim willingly ran the red? I freely admit a few times in my 25+ years of collision-free driving I have totally fucked up and ran reds or turned down one-way streets unknowingly. Fortunately other road users have been either absent or accommodating. The modern traffic environment can be a total sensory overload, and when you reach sensory input overload at 20-30MPH genuine mistakes happen, in a car or on a bike. By the time you figure out you are wrong it's too late (a great argument for 20MPH zones, that - the consequences of inevitable mistakes shouldn't be an 80% chance of death for non-drivers)

I wonder if this thread might be cited in future cases as evidence the 'cycling community' sides with the insurers of law-breaking HGV operators that you are fair game if you happen to be ignoring traffic regulations at the time...

Fair enough. He has to bear some of the responsibility. The unfortunate thing is that it is claimed he was an 'experienced' cyclist. If RLJ is what experience teaches one, then gawd help the inexperienced...

Yes this result does seem very cruel, but live by the sword die by the sword I am afraid. Red lights don't distinguish between cars, vans, buses, trucks, taxis or cyclists. In fact road users should be stopping or attempting to stop on amber as per the Highway Code then you never run the risk of RLJing.

Very sad for the Dorling family but it cannot be ignored that Mr Dorling may have contributed to his death in the eyes of the law so damages reduced accordingly. Just remember this all you RLJers the same legal result will happen if you are killed in similar circumstances whilst RLJing, that you or your Estate will receive reduced damages. It can't be any other way. If you want to receive max damages or you want your family in the event of your death to receive a maximum payout then you shouldn't break the law. Simples, but very sad in this instance. Had Mr Dorling stopped for the red light or attempted to stop at amber then he may probably still been killed but in law he would not have been held contributory negligent with respect to the civil action for damages in the case brought by his Executors, his wife. Heart breakingly sad but the right result has been reached.

As for the driver he has been prosecuted and convicted under criminal law and maybe his punishment should have been a lot more severe which always seems to be an issue in cases where cyclists are killed or seriously injured.

But please don't RLJ. The traffic signals are in place for everyones' safety. Then hopefully terrible collisions like this won't happen.

A load of bullshit, it was proven over and over again he did not ride through any red light, just the usual propaganda was repeated again and again until weak people started believing it.

I hope his family contest it as it's a load of bullshit.

Here's the description from LCC

"On the first day of the inquest, the court heard that both Brian Dorling and the lorry driven by Mr Cox crossed the stop line just after the lights had changed to red.

Mr Dorling was on the left side of the lane following the blue painted 'ghost' lane which continues around the outside of the roundabout across the mouth of the exit to the A12 going north.

The lorry, which had moved in from the outside lane was heading to make a left turn at the roundabout.

The driver could not seen Brian directly and might only have had a very short time to see him in his mirrors.

The driver failed to give way to the cyclist, turning across his path, hitting him and the bike with the front-left wheels of his lorry, causing grave injuries that led to his death."

A slower cyclist would have been in the same position as Brian Dorling if they had gone through on amber.

The government desperately needs to place the HSE in charge of regulation of the haulage industry.
The levels of fines and actions against directors where accidents occur on or near building sites is orders of magnitudes higher than on our roads, for injuries with similar impacts - except that the injured in this case are passers by, not employees.

However, the HSE does step in from time to time, then, look at the levels of fines levied.

Unsecured excavator arm swings into the path of oncoming traffic, 5 killed £500,000 fine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/25082.stm

Fork lift driver upsets load onto lorry driver, £240,000 fine.
For example: http://press.hse.gov.uk/2014/stonehaven-firm-fined-240000-after-driver-c...

Excavator driver drops load onto pedestrian - kills him, £3750 fine.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2008/coilon01008.htm

Compare these to typical fines for deaths of cyclists.

This all confusing to me. I'm assuming the Cyclist and the lorry were on the same side of the road, going the same way? But its says the cyclist was cycling on the Cycle Superhighway which is the Blue Shell Grip lanes, yes? So ok, what was the lorry doing in the cycle highway? Red Light Jumping aside this really looks like a case of it would have happened regardless. Such a shame.

Things Never To Raise At Cyclist Dinner Parties:

helmets
hi-viz
using dual carriageways for cycling events
obeying red lights at all costs
Strava
right to shout at other 'cyclists'
collective responsibility

and now, drumroll please...

Whether your family should suffer because someone else killed you in a place you shouldn't have been at that exact moment even though they were totally at fault.

If anyones interested, heres the Regulation 28: Prevention of Future Deaths report submitted by the coroner at the inquests of both Brian Dorling and Philippine Gerin-Ricard, Mary Hassell.

If you pay attention, you can read very clearly that she states she believes that Mr Dorling was lulled into a false sense of security, and misled into believing he had priority, by the shabby design of Bow Roundabout.

If Mr Dorling's widow is going to have a payout cut by over 30% then surely the HGV driver should be facing a custodial sentence for killing someone after jumping a red light?

Thats quite a clear case of death by dangerous driving.

That is before even discussing corporate manslaughter charges against (a not fit for purpose) TfL

@ AyBee @ mikeprytherch :

Man did thing that millions of UK citizens and visitors do every single day, without injury or impact on others, risking no-one but themselves, namely proceed through a red light - be it controlling vehicles or pedestrians. No licence required.

Someone in an HGV did the same in a multi-ton vehicle that requires a special licence to operate, and killed him.

You think that means his wife should be effectively punished by potentially suffering financial hardship, and the vehicle's insurers should be let off paying for the convicted actions of their customer.

...and this is not a 'payout'. It's his basic salary for the shortest-possible estimation of his working life. Your use of such a term makes it sound like a compo-culture cashgrab. His wife/daughter could well be reading this, FFS.

Take a long, hard look at yourselves.

I'm sorry guys but I've read the report and there is absolutely no clear evidence that if he had not run the red light he would still of been killed, the lorry only veered left into his track when it wanted to turn left, if he had stayed at the lights the lorry would likely of not of hit him as it would not of started turning, it would of turned after it had passed him, of course if the lorry was driving in the gutter then yes it would of hit him, however there is no suggestion this was the case in any evidence I have seen.

Yes I know this is subjective but so is your appraisal, I deeply regret what's happened here and I truly with all my heart feel for those effected, I am an a cyclist and I would hate to think of my family in this situation, two wrongs don't make a right and because he unfortunately paid the ultimate price doesn't take away any contributory negligence with what he did, and if some of you believe I am a c**t for having this view then so be it.

+1 bikebikebike

It'll have very little to do with the incident specifics, and everything with a stone cold callous immoral insurance company finding the slightest wriggle room to reduce it's liability. they have shareholders you know

This is really messed up.

Would he have avoided the lorry if he'd obeyed the light? Or would he have been run over a few feet further back?

If the lorry came up behind him (likely) then his jumping the light wouldn't have been contributory and this should be appealed/reviewed.

This case has really bugged me from the start, and not getting better.

I feel for the family